Paul Portman

The plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim to limit their damages to $200,000 and to have the action proceed under the simplified procedure pursuant to Rule 76.

The defendants opposed the application of the simplified procedure, arguing prejudice due to discovery limits.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the amended claim and the defendants' counterclaim both fell within the $200,000 limit, making the simplified procedure mandatory.

The court declined to apply the presumptive costs consequences under Rule 76.13(1), leaving the costs of the amendment to the discretion of the trial judge.

The applicant's application for the return of tools and equipment was dismissed.

The parties were unable to agree on costs, and the respondent sought $8,768.80 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful and entitled to costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amount to reflect what an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, fixing costs at $7,000 payable by the applicant.

The applicant, a construction company, brought an urgent application for the return of tools and equipment from the respondent's property, a declaration that the construction contract was void, and damages.

The court dismissed the request for the return of property, finding the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for ownership and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The court also determined the matter was not suitable to proceed as an application due to material facts in dispute and the existence of a parallel action commenced by the respondent.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to the applicant to file a defence and counterclaim in the ongoing action.

The applicants, a senior couple, sought to bring an urgent application for leave to evict residential tenants, despite a provincial moratorium on evictions, and requested the court to grant an eviction order.

The court declined to schedule the proposed application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to issue an initial eviction order for residential tenants.

Such jurisdiction rests exclusively with the Landlord and Tenant Board under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The court clarified that its role under Rule 60.17 is limited to providing directions for enforcing an *existing* eviction order, not creating one.

The Applicant brought an urgent 14B motion for child support and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the issues insufficiently urgent to be heard during the COVID-19 court closure, which required "dire" financial circumstances.

The court noted that the parties had previously agreed to delay the sale of the home and that the Applicant had not complied with disclosure requirements.

This is a costs ruling following an emergency motion where the Respondent Father (RF) successfully obtained an order for the children to be re-enrolled in their original schools and for Newmarket to be the appropriate forum.

The RF sought over $14,000 in costs.

The Applicant Mother (AM) opposed the costs, arguing for proportionality and citing an inability to pay.

The court found the AM's unilateral decision to change schools unwarranted but deemed the RF's requested costs grossly disproportionate.

The AM was ordered to pay $3,500 in fixed costs to the RF, inclusive of HST and disbursements.